Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[GT/CS]

Please support that or quit saying it. How many people are you talking about?

Personally, I'm certain there's not enough detail in the film to say much of anything about the fur involved. There could be 11 zippers and it would be difficult to spot them in this grainy, blurry, low resolution, poorly exposed strip of film.

On top of that, we are not even looking at originals, but enhanced and enlarged copies, which further degrades what little detail there was in the first place.

No one can say anything much at all about the fur or hair involved, imo.

All such talk is just noise, which is what's on the film when you try to see details.

We can certainly see the wrist band, though, thanks to Sweaty!!!!!

Yes, I know, but you'd all be disappointed if I didn't say it!

 

[captain koolaid]

Bill, are you aware of Dfoot's picture of patty photoshopped into an urban setting & claimed to be a suit reconstruction? A lot of people on the BF boards were quick to say how it looked nothing like the real thing & was obviously a suit (until they realized what had been done, them it was mass chaos.) ... No matter how detailed & accurate, they will not accept it.

A revealing event, and something of a watershed, in it's own way. Does the thread survive, unmolested?

 

[LTC8K6]

We can certainly see the wrist band, though, thanks to Sweaty!!!!!

Yes, I know, but you'd all be disappointed if I didn't say it!

Check my edit!

 

[Bill Munns]

Geno:

As far as i know, everybody else today in the makeup business says "fake" Don't have any exact number of people, but have seen a list of a dozen or more. We can safely say I am in the minority.

LTC8K6

Posts about me (not necessarily the complete list) before i was aware of this forum:

#10055
#10076
#10079
#10082
#10089
#10094
#10126
#10135
#10147
#10191
#10195
#10237
#10317
#10392
#10612
#10715
#10726
#10879
#10998
#11276
#11330
#11765
#11769
#11772
#12151


Captain Koolade:

I haven't seen all Dfoot's photos.




People, I'm going to try this one more time, to explain exactly what I'm doing and how it came about.

Allow me to construct a simple "this is how it happened, and why it is today what it is" description.

I was curious about finding a bigfoot image on the net, so I did a google image search. One link lead me to the BFF, and a Chris Walas thread. I'd never seen a web forum before (honestly) and so I was curious. I read the thread and found it interesting, and some of the people seemed quite nice and knowledgable to me.

I had no idea there were other forums and no knowledge of the profoundly differing philosophies of different forums. So I joined the one I had found, and thought "I have some ideas I'd like to run by these people", and maybe with my knowledge of suits, maybe I can contribute to their understanding, because they do talk about it. So I wrote a few notes and put them up. They were well received. So I put up a few more.

As it progressed, I began to think about how a research program might help clear up things so the discussion could really have some hard, testable data to bring to the PG Film issue. So I didn't even think I was going to do a research program until after I started posting notes and seeing others contribute comments and information. And some researchers there helped me to understand what the possibilities are for doing such research.

Nothing was planned then, no grand strategy, and there wasn't a plan for a research study before the notes were started. So how could I withhold the notes until the research was done if the notes came first just as an informal sharing of information, before any research plan. There is a phrase, "you can't put the genie back in the bottle", and the notes simply went up before any research plan, so I can't go back now to a "hide the notes till I'm done" type of research plan. And if this methodology is a novel research method, so be it.

But are you intimidated because my ideas are on "your forum" or are you intimidated simply because my notes exist, even on another internet location? Can I post them to a website of my own, or must I hide them from all public view?

And I repeat, all talk of the notes in this forum is because others here brought my name and discussion of my notes here. I didn't. And all talk about my research plans or goals stems from people here challenging me to explain or justify my position.

If you all promise to ignore me, I promise to go away. (the notes will, of course, still be in another forum).



Bill

 

[LTC8K6]

I know how the search function works, Mr. Munns.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Astrophotographer:
Why did the very existance of my notes on another forum so intimidate these people here that they felt they had to gossip about me here? And if they did to you what they did to me these last two months, wouldn't you want to defend yourself?

People here apparently felt your comments worth presenting and arguing against since this thread is all about the PGF. From what I have read, the other forum was being rather restrictive in commentary and also editing peoples work. To me that seems rather biased and completely unscientific. At least in this forum, as long as some basic rules are not violated, the words of individuals will not be edited and, to the best of my knowledge, changed to mean something they are not. If you want to argue about people misquoting you, which is wrong, then do so. If people are misinterpreting what you write, then you have the right to correct it. However, people have the right to discuss and even criticize your conclusions. If you take offense to that, then you should not publish anything at all.

In the matter of the notes, here are my thoughts, again, respectfully answering your sincere question.

During any research effort, you can make conclusions on singular issues within the larger research framework. And you may show your reseach work in progress to others if you choose, or operate in secret, as one prefers. Allowing others to read, review and comment on a work in progress does have merit in helping shape the further direction of the effort. It did with mine.

I never forced anyone to read them or talk about them. Anyone can just say, "well, he's not done yet, so I'll just wait till he's done and published and then maybe I'll have a look."

The notes will only be talked about on this forum as long as forum members choose to talk about them, because I'm not planning on posting any notes here, except segments to counter arguments made by others to defend myself. Perhaps you should ask those who brought my name and discussion of the notes over here, why they did so, why they felt they were necessary to discuss. I frankly wish they hadn't, but done is done.

Again, people in this forum are discussing the PGF, of which you are a self-proclaimed expert. If you are posting elsewhere in public it is in their right to bring up your arguments about the PGF and discuss them. I keep getting the impression you feel that people had no right discussing them or being critical of them in some forum that you are not present. If that is the case, I suggest you stop publicly discussing your research because people will "gossip" about your research for years to come no matter how much you complain about it.

 

[Crowlogic]

Toss this thing around every which way you can. There's a story behind it.

 

[Bill Munns]

LTC8K6

Than you know how to find the answer to your question.

Astrophotogrpher:

Please pay attention: I am not a PG Film expert. I am an experienced professional who made suits for films for 30 plus years. it is precisely these kinds of misunderstanding I must try to clear up.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Please pay attention: I am not a PG Film expert. I am an experienced professional who made suits for films for 30 plus years. it is precisely these kinds of misunderstanding I must try to clear up.

However, you are applying your area of "expertise" to the PGF, which makes your public notes worth of commentary and discussion. It also gives the impression that you are an expert on one aspect of the PGF.

 

[Bill Munns]

Astrophotographer

Please make up your mind. Do you want my notes to go away or stay and be discussed?

And your "the impresion" of my being a PGfilm expert is different than my saying I am one. You seem to feel I must be answerable to other people's impressions of me.

 

[captain koolaid]

Captain Koolade:

I haven't seen all Dfoot's photos.

Neither have I. But what I have seen, is very informative.

I was curious about finding a bigfoot image on the net, so I did a google image search. One link lead me to the BFF, and a Chris Walas thread. I'd never seen a web forum before (honestly) and so I was curious...
I had no idea there were other forums and no knowledge of the profoundly differing philosophies of different forums. So I joined the one I had found, and thought "I have some ideas I'd like to run by these people", and maybe with my knowledge of suits, maybe I can contribute to their understanding, because they do talk about it. So I wrote a few notes and put them up. They were well received. So I put up a few more...

Perhaps.

But are you intimidated because my ideas are on "your forum" or are you intimidated simply because my notes exist, even on another internet location?

Cannot and will not, attempt to speak for others. But why would anyone be "intimidated"? By the very existence of the notes? Regardless of whether or not you have issues with certain posters, the appearence of articulate analysis is a welcome thing, even if it is slanted towards a particular conclusion. Objectivity is often in the eye of the beholder. The "existence" of the posts is not what gives pause IMHO... it is the apparent synchronicity.

If you all promise to ignore me, I promise to go away. (the notes will, of course, still be in another forum).

I doubt that few, if any, would not value your opinion.

...And I repeat, all talk of the notes in this forum is because others here brought my name and discussion of my notes here. I didn't...

Posts about me (not necessarily the complete list) before i was aware of this forum:

#10055
#10076
#10079
#10082
#10089
#10094
#10126
#10135
#10147
#10191
#10195
#10237
#10317
#10392
#10612
#10715
#10726
#10879
#10998
#11276
#11330
#11765
#11769
#11772
#12151

All these posts? As you say, so much talk and discussion of your notes here. What took so long? Your debut, and appreciated input isn't the curious thing. It is the timing. Again.

 

[kitakaze]

But are you intimidated because my ideas are on "your forum" or are you intimidated simply because my notes exist, even on another internet location? Can I post them to a website of my own, or must I hide them from all public view?

Bill this is highly presumptuous if not arrogant. Please do not pursue the holder of the shining truth vs evil skeptics schtick. Erroneous data and statements are discussed ase are poor reasonings trying to bring veracity to the PGF. Nothing you have written is intimidating in anyway and I certainly feel no obligation to join a bigfoot enthusiast's forum to discuss it.

You're obviously new to internet forums and the kind of social interaction they entail. You found the BFF, started posting your musings and immediately got accolades and attention from the kids 'round the fire there. They encouraged you, you encouraged them. You present your musings in an apparent scientific package which excites the footers. They strive and long for legitimacy so of course they react this way. Meanwhile, while your every word becomes doted on by your new fan club, people who conduct critical inquiry into the PGF take note of the bigfoot enthusiast's flavour of the month and note the 'wisdom' in some of these musings. Again, being new to the concept of internet forums, having your musings criticized is taken personally and now your spend much time here addressings those criticisms.

What you don't seem willing to recognize is that some of those criticisms are valid.

 

[LTC8K6]

Than you know how to find the answer to your question.

Yes, your notes haven't been argued about here much at all. I already knew that, having conducted a search when I read your claim.

I am wondering why you keep claiming they have been?

You may answer at any time.

 

[Bill Munns]

Captain Koolaid:
I only found out about all the talk about me here because someone did a google search of my name, found many links here, and Mr. Parcher's particularly vivid post, which I copied in my first post here. So that's why I came to see what was being said.

kitakaze:

You make it sound like everything that's transpired in the past three days is normal for this fourm/ Do I understand you correctly? If so, fine, let it continue.

LTC8K6

"much" is the relative term we disagree upon.

They have been discussed, so I decided to join the discusion.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

My notes on muscle padding and muscle simulation suits explain this quite thoroughly? Furcloth of the time moves it's own way, like cloth, and little (if any) movement can be transmitted through it by some other force?

Yes, I saw your notes; the problem I have is that I've seen two things that seem to show otherwise. Since Dfoot posts here, hopefully he'll repost his fake fur and muscle padding demo for you. I suggest talking to the webmaster of the site that I linked to about fake fur, as they have more experience than I have in that department.

Seams are harder to hide with short hair. It's an odd choice for anybody trying to make a suit with 1960's hair materials.

I agree that long hair hides seams better than short hair, I'm just noting that use of such hair in monster costumes (be they for entertainment or hoaxing purposes) aren't unheard of. This is the main reason I said that I'd love it if you analyzed the Ivan Marx "cripplefoot" film and the Harley Hoffman film; I think they could act as "controls" of sorts in your analysis of the P/G film. Speaking of films featuring short-furred hominid costumes, 1925's "The Lost World" features one. You can see it from 01:14-01:33 in this video. I sincerely hope that you have the time to watch those clips, offer your notes on them, and compare them to the P/G film. I am more than willing to address the availability of those titles on home video if you'd like.

"A good example of this is how he dismisses the idea of the "rippling leg muscle" as being loose fabric since he can't imagine someone leaving part of the costume loose. "

I said if it's a suit, the leg thing could be explained as a flap of furcloth loose. I acknowledged that, which you obviously missed. I wondered why nobody would have missed re-gluing it before the cameras roll. I can't imagine that, because if I were there, I'd never let it happen.

Although I now think you didn't intend it this way, your wording at the BFF and in your reply can give the impression that you're casting doubt on the costume aspect. This is why I wrote what I did.

I acknowledged being aware of water pouches suposedly used by Charlie Gamora for a 40's gorilla suit. And I explained exactly how fluid filled breasts could be made with 60's technology. I said I was unaware of anybody actually doing so (fluid sacks to make bouncing breasts) at that time.

Okay, this is going to require some backstory: For whatever reason, my computer doesn't "play well" with the BFF. I have no problem reading the first post in a thread, everything after that is a crapshoot. Posts that I can see on a different computer (using the exact same browser; I should also note that my ability to access to that computer varies) will not appear when I visit the BFF on my own PC. Sometimes when I try to link to certain parts of a BFF thread, other JREF posters will note that the link leads to a different part of the thread. It is only on very rare occasions that I am able to see entire threads, and this usually applies only to threads that are several years old. To make things more annoying, the other computer I mentioned is set to automatically block cookies, so I can't do any posts here on that computer.

As a result of this, I can only check on your BFF threads at random times and can't comment on them until I get to my computer much later in the day. This means that I have to do it all from memory. This could account for some discrepencies/mistakes/etc.

This also means that since these are posts I did months ago (and judging from the odd spacing and grammar at points, some of which I did while being tired), so it's hard to recall what I was thinking the moment I had written that. I suspect that my water bag comment was based on your comments about muscle movement and fake fur, which wouldn't apply since (at least to my knowledge) the suits used in those movies were "ventilated" and didn't use "fake fur." On a side note, I suggest looking into whether or not the supposed muscles are film grains or artifacts. I only recall the possibility of them being tricks of the light being brought up the last time I was at the BFF, hence my bringing this up.

My memory is vague about the breast issue, but I don't seem to recall your breast comments involving using water; you seemed to be focused on gels and the like. But, as I've noted before, I'm going by admittedly fuzzy memories and could be wrong.

Did you miss my explanation of actually working in a suit myself, for Swamp Thing", and having crew squirt cold water into my suit with Hudson Sprayers? Or did you miss the part of my notes where I said specifically that people can train and condition themselves to endure longer in suits?

This also seems to be due to issues sparked by my BFF-viewing woes and my inability to recall what I was and wasn't thinking while crafting my comments back then are rather compromised. But I'll be a sport and try to second-guess myself. My comment about the bags of ice imply that either I had forgotten about the sprayer or that I was operating under the idea that you were only considering complicated cooling methods. Judging from your comments here, neither of those is what you intended.

I suspect that a similar comment in the thread that seemed to imply amateurs wouldn't have someone train for a long period of time could've played a role as well. I feel that such things are dangerous assumptions to make about "amateur" hoaxers and is exactly the kind of thinking that gets people tricked. After all, the Surgeon's Photograph of the Loch Ness Monster fooled people for decades and although many people disagree over the exact nature of the hoax's construction, they do agree that it's a hoax.

Are you talking about a professional Hollywood hoax or a "two cowboys and a friend" hoax?

I hate to sound difficult, but I'll require your personal definitons of "Hollywood hoax" and "two cowboys and a friend" hoax. Some skeptics think that Patterson, Gimlin, and a third person hoaxed it themselves using a costume (and possibly some grooming/maintenance tips) from people in Hollywood (using Patterson's connections; I think he might've visited Hollywood at one point, but I'm not 100% sure). Which grouping would that fall under?

All of my analysis is pertaining to building suits. I have avoided any consideration of a backstory, and focused on the material skills, processes and techniques of building suits. It's called "focus on the hypothesis". Can a suit appearing like the figure in the film have been made with 1960's suit technology, and if so, how? That's my hypothesis.

I must respectfully disagree with that approach. Researching the events that happened prior to and after the filiming are a must if you are trying to figure out the nature of what's going on onscreen. After all, such information could get you on the right track if an aspect of the film throws you off track without realizing it. Here's an example: Many look at the film and assume that any signs of hoaxers would've been left on the ground. These people don't realize that there was heavy rain hours after. It was so bad that there was flooding and no planes in that area were allowed to fly. This would destroy any and all tracks left on the ground. Yet, days later, Bob Titmus claims to be able to see Patterson's tracks along with those of Bigfoot.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't your analysis open to the possibility of the filmed subject being a real Bigfoot? If so, wouldn't Patterson's claim of the hair being 2-4 inches long be of importance to you? Likewise, wouldn't the knowledge that Patterson was filming at an odd speed and that the film often has its speed adjusted for play on TV, in films, etc.? This would definitely effect aspects of the film, such as the "smoothness" of the gait.

Not in my Part 4 analysis, found here:
Page 6, Post 144, D foot thread BFF

Due to my BFF-viewing issues, I can't double-check myself. When I get access to another computer, I can double check on this if you'd like. However, I suspect this is due to my computer displaying things differently than the other computer.

2. When did Munns make that statue?"

It was made in 1988, when I worked at Creative Presentations.

Thank you; that definitely rules out Marx or Freeman copying your statue.

"3. What could've inspired the look of the hand casts if it wasn't the statue?"

It's called artistic speculation, based on studying various primate and human hands, and realizing that no fossil hands (or anything below the jaw) exists for Giganto. Read "Other Origins" for how I speculated about the body skeletol design. I just had to make a plausible estimation of how it might look.

Thank you for the input; I'll have to check out that book sometime. However, I should note I was talking about what could've inspired peoples' fake Bigfoot hand designs if they weren't using your statue's hands as a guideline and not what inspired you. I'm guessing that my sandwiching it between two questions relating to you is what caused the confusion and I apologize for that/will keep that in mind for future posts.

I've never attended any Bigfoot conference. I attended one for the Americal Association of Physical Anthropologists (where I met Grover Kranz) in 1988, and when he had his photo taken beside one of my Giganto figures. Perhaps someone made an assumption my meeting Grover was at a Bigfoot event, because he went to them.

Ah. Your theory on the matter sounds likely.

4 way stretch spandex fur was introduced to the industry in the early 1980's by National Fibre Technology of Lawrence, MA. Confirmed fact.

I think I should point out that my comment was made assuming that kitakaze saying "is this some kind of joke" meant that he knew something I didn't.

Just one simple question, if I may. If you were so determined to wonder about me, my motive, and my notes, why not just go over to the BFF and ask me directly? Don't you like going to the source for a direct first person answer? Just curious here.

Personally, it's due to the browsing issues I have with BFF. In fact, I was planning on e-mailing you directly once your notes had finished (after seeing the wisdom in Correa Neto's decision to wait). I'd imagine that others would be apprehensive about joining due to the behavior of the moderators, especially due to the incidents involving Dfoot that occurred not long after you had joined. Since several people at the JREF do post over there and occasionally crosspost ideas from here to the BFF, it may have been assumed that their comments were getting brought up by those people. In fact, that's why I was making my comments on your notes here.

I should also point out that nobody was talking about your notes until a proponent by the name "manofthesea" brought it up here.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Hi Bill, I have a question for you, since you've worked with suits for so long....does the Patterson subject look like a guy wearing a heavily-padded suit to you, in general?

Here's a short clip from the film, showing quite a bit of flexibility on Patty's right thigh....

Have you done any work with suits that had much padding inside of them?


One thing you can expect on this board...I can say from my own experience...is that there'll be a lot of misrepresentations of what you say in your posts, and lots of mischaracterizations of your motives, intelligence, ability to be objective.....basically...the works!

 

[LTC8K6]

One thing you can expect on this board...I can say from my own experience...is that there'll be a lot of misrepresentations of what you say in your posts, and lots of mischaracterizations of your motives, intelligence, ability to be objective.....basically...the works!

Yes, I'm sure those lies about the board will gain you some respect, Sweaty. Not.

My guess is that Mr. Munns will require you to support those claims before he believes them, and you can't.

I'm also sure that he didn't come here to listen to people whine.

 

[manofthesea]

I should also point out that nobody was talking about your notes until a proponent by the name "manofthesea" brought it up here.

And sadly, I have no opinion on the subject matter. I just thought it appropriate to mention that a true and acknowledged costume expert was to discuss the possibility of the PGF creature being a man in a monkey suit. Alot of the discussion was on costume credentials also. Admittledly my posts are mostly 'curt', but that's mostly from having lost some 'patience'. Hopefully, the respectful nature of this thread will continue.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

...So I wrote a few notes and put them up. They were well received. So I put up a few more ...

Did it occur to you they were well received because you were somewhat biased against a suit ?


Chris Wallace wasn't well received, or anyone else who points out indications of a suit ...

You sidestepped a couple of problems I pointed out to you .. ( I am Skeptical Greg at BFF ) Particularly an indication of shoulder pads ..

Here is another one for you ..

A couple of people have commented on the relatively rigid breasts..

How would you account for one breast noticeably bouncing while the other remained rigid ?

P.S.

Hey I just noticed Sweaty posted the animation that shows the left breast bouncing all by itself ..
There is a blow up of it somewhere ... I'll have to dig it up ..

It's also a good illustration of the wader look of the upper thigh ..

Muscles are not orientated perpendicular to the bones ..

 

[Crowlogic]

Bill this is highly presumptuous if not arrogant. Please do not pursue the holder of the shining truth vs evil skeptics schtick. Erroneous data and statements are discussed ase are poor reasonings trying to bring veracity to the PGF. Nothing you have written is intimidating in anyway and I certainly feel no obligation to join a bigfoot enthusiast's forum to discuss it.

You're obviously new to internet forums and the kind of social interaction they entail. You found the BFF, started posting your musings and immediately got accolades and attention from the kids 'round the fire there. They encouraged you, you encouraged them. You present your musings in an apparent scientific package which excites the footers. They strive and long for legitimacy so of course they react this way. Meanwhile, while your every word becomes doted on by your new fan club, people who conduct critical inquiry into the PGF take note of the bigfoot enthusiast's flavour(flavor) of the month and note the 'wisdom' in some of these musings. Again, being new to the concept of internet forums, having your musings criticized is taken personally and now your spend much time here addressings (addressing) those criticisms.

What you don't seem willing to recognize is that some of those criticisms are valid.

Kitakaze

I've taken the liberty of correcting your spelling. That said I find it strange that you of all people would comment on the apparent arrogance of Bill Munns when your level of arrogance is perhaps unequaled here. But then there is a tendency to turn a blind eye to one’s own, shall we say, less than flattering shortcomings. You speak time and time again of enlightened thought and thinking and yet you feel the need to berate the membership of another internet community. In this case to use your terminology “kids around the fire”. I come to this place because it challenges me. It challenges me to read with steady measure the things you post while my skin is crawling with distain. I suggest you actually try operating in that enlightened modality that you so often claim to adhere to. The first step of attaining that modality may be to show this internet community that you are well and truly comfortable with your knowledge and viewpoint. And by that I mean comfortable is not having to reduce the opposing viewpoints which whether or not they agree with yours are nevertheless your intellectual equal. And without hesitation I can say that none of those “kids around the fire” are as vile as you.